Andy Kroll

Andy Kroll

Senior Reporter

Andy Kroll is Mother Jones' Dark Money reporter. He is based in the DC bureau. His work has also appeared at the Wall Street Journal, the Guardian, Men's Journal, the American Prospect, and, where he's an associate editor. Email him at akroll (at) motherjones (dot) com. He tweets at @AndyKroll.

Get my RSS |

GOP Rep. Broun: Beware "Tyrannical" Gov't

| Mon Apr. 19, 2010 12:23 PM EDT

At a Second Amendment rally in the shadow of the Washington Monument, Rep. Paul Broun (R-Ga.) fired up an already boisterous crowd of gun lovers, sign toters, and self-proclaimed Constitutional defenders by railing against his "socialist" colleagues on Capitol Hill and demanding a ballot-box revolution this fall. In doing so, Broun gave the event's organizers—like Skip Coryell, a anti-government gun rights advocate from Michigan—and attending groups like the Oath Keepers just what they wanted to hear.

Echoing a controversial remark made last fall aimed at House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Broun told the crowd, "We have a lot of domestic enemies in the United States, and they work down the Mall," referring to certain members of Congress. Soon after, Broun added that Second Amendment defenders like himself and those in the crowd—many of them sporting bright orange stickers saying "Guns Save Lives"—needed to protect themselves from "the tyrannical government of the United States" and fight back against the "socialists that are running Congress."

This is not unusual rhetoric for Broun. He has called President Barack Obama a "socialist" and suggested that the administration might use a natural disaster or pandemic to "develop an environment where they can take over." He has also refused to fill in the complete Census form this year, describing it as an invasion of his privacy.

In a brief interview after his speech, I asked Broun whether he, as a politician, agreed with the virulently anti-government rhetoric of the groups hosting the event. For instance, Larry Pratt of Gun Owners for America, one of the march's sponsors, was reported to have said earlier today  that "we are in a war." Referring to the government, he added, "They're coming for our freedom, for our money, for our kids, for our property. They're coming for everything because they're a bunch of socialists!" Broun said that he believed "government certainly has a place," but that only "people who are going to fight for limited government, low taxes, low intrusion into people's lives" should be left in office. "It's all about freedom," he said. "The federal government should only be doing the 18 things that Article 1, Section 8 [of the Constitution] gives the authority to do. Just 18."

Advertise on

Obama Stands Tall On Derivatives

| Fri Apr. 16, 2010 1:36 PM EDT

President Obama struck a tough stance on overhauling Wall Street today, saying he won't accept a financial reform bill if it doesn't include new derivatives regulations, the opaque products that allow certain users to hedge risk but others to gamble on swings in the market. Any new bill needs to bring derivatives trading "under control," the president was quoted as saying by Reuters.

Right now, derivatives, which derive their value from underlying sources like the cost of wheat or interest rates, are mostly traded over the counter, which means there's little public information about trading prices, the structure of the derivatives, and who's trading with whom. The opacity of the OTC derivatives market, worth around $450 trillion, played a major role in the collapse of the global economy. Because Wall Street and other financial heavyweights used derivatives to dangerously bet on the financial markets, and did so without sharing information on the cost and nature of those deals, when those bets went sour in 2008 and 2009, there was no safety net or cushion across the industry to absorb those losses. The result was the crippling of firms like AIG.

New derivatives regulations proposed by the House and Senate would require greater transparency in derivatives trading and would also require that many of the firms buying and selling these products would together bear the brunt of the next crisis, thus preventing a handful of firms from getting pummelled. These are crucial reforms needed to bolster how corporations, utility companies, farmers, and many others use derivatives, and Obama appears ready to make sure those reforms happen.

Can We Rely On Regulators?

| Fri Apr. 16, 2010 10:59 AM EDT

That's a question looming large over the debate in Congress on how best to rewrite the rules of our financial system. Given the failures of regulators like the Securities and Exchange Commission (Bernie Madoff), the Federal Reserve (subprime lending), and plenty more, you'd think lawmakers and government technocrats would want to dummy-proof financial regulation as much as possible. Yet as the bill looks now, it keeps a tremendous amount of power with the same cast of characters who missed the meltdown in the first place. Case in point: the proposed Financial Stability Oversight Council, intended to prevent too-big- or too-interconnected-to-fail banks from collapsing, which would be staffed by, well, the Fed, Treasury, SEC, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and all the familiar faces.

If politicians needed any more proof that shuffling existing regulators won't fix the fundamental problems, then this week's autopsy of Washington Mutual, the largest bank failure in US history, should suffice. Over several hearings and press briefings this week, the Senate investigations subcommittee, led by Carl Levin (D-MI) and Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), has dissected how WaMu and its former subprime subsidiary, Long Beach Mortgage, created a "mortgage time bomb" and fed the voracious mortgage securitization machine on Wall Street. Moreover, Levin and Coburn's teams examined how WaMu's principal regulator, the Office of Thrift Supervision, utterly failed in every single one of its duties: OTS failed to crack down on the bank's abysmal lending practices; allowed WaMu to churn out bogus option ARM mortgages worth hundreds of billions of dollars; and treated WaMu like a buddy and not a bank to be reined in. Not only that, OTS even blocked another regulator, the FDIC, from trying to get a peek at WaMu's toxic holdings.

The Senate's investigation reads like an exercise in folly. In emails, examiner reports, and other communications, OTS repeatedly spotlighted the bank's pitiful standards and practices. Yet for years the regulator failed to do anything. No enforcement actions, fines, required board resolutions. Nothing. OTS was supposed to be a firefighter, ready to rush into action at the first sign of trouble, Levin told reporters yesterday. Instead, "it stood and watched idly while the incendiary threat grew wider and wider."

Underpinning the OTS' hands-off approach was the bank's cozy relationship with WaMu. As Levin explained, OTS derives its funding from fees it assesses on the banks it regulates; WaMu, it turns out, was a huge source of revenue for OTS, posing a blatant conflict of interest for the regulator. This led to a relationship, emails and reports cited in Levin and Coburn's report show, in which the OTS viewed WaMu not as someone to be scrutinized but as a "constituent" and a customer. "Regulations only work if regulators stay at arm's length from people they regulate," Levin said. OTS, on the other hand, worked "arm in arm" with WaMu.

The evidence dug up by the Senate subcommittee is damning, and it painfully illustrates a classic case of regulatory capture. If anything, it's proof that new financial rules crafted by Congress and the White House need to be regulator-proof; that means limits on risk levels, mandatory amounts of cash to absorb losses, and outright bans on tricky products, among others. Anything else, the Senate's findings suggest, will lead to plenty more OTS-WaMu debacles in the future.

Is Wall St. Reform Health Care 2.0?

| Thu Apr. 15, 2010 2:54 PM EDT

Are the Democrats poised to ram through a new financial reform bill and recreate last month's bruising, rancorous, controversial health care battle? If Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid stands by his remarks made today, then the answer to that question could be Yes. In a press briefing today, Reid said, "We have talked about this enough. We have negotiated this enough," while suggesting that a bill overhauling Wall Street and possibly creating a new consumer protection agency could land on the Senate floor as early as next week, Huffington Post's Ryan Grim reports. And while Republicans say they want to be able to make changes to the bill before it hits the floor, the Obama administration doesn't want the GOP to have the chance to whittle away at the legislation and bog down negotiations on the bill.

If the Democrats do indeed go it alone, they're potentially setting the stage for another health-care-esque bruiser in the Senate. Already, the bill, which should theoretically garner plenty of bipartisan support (everyone wants to end too-big-to-fail, predatory lending, and dangerous financial products, right?), has divided the Senate. Since returning from recess, the debate over new financial reforms has rapidly disintegrated into a partisan shout-fest complete with old-school takedowns ("poppycock"? Really Chris Dodd?), Charlie Brown football folly references, heated floor speeches, and plenty of jabs and upper cuts thrown by each party.

HAMP: Still No Hope for Homeowners

| Thu Apr. 15, 2010 4:10 AM EDT

Is there any hope for the Obama administration's much maligned, $75 billion homeowner relief effort, the Home Affordable Modification Program (HAMP)? Government watchdogs, consumer advocates, and lawmakers have, since its unveiling last March, repeatedly criticized HAMP and its architects over at the Treasury Department for any number of reasons—the program's paltry results, Treasury's efforts to move the goal posts for HAMP success, the disproportionate number of carrots and too few sticks in the program, and much more. In just over a year, the program, which was initially predicted to help three to four million homeowners, has provided permanent loan modifications (an agreement between the mortgage servicer and homeowner to lower monthly payments through interest rate or principal reductions, or extending the loan's life) to 228,000 homeowners, according to Phyllis Caldwell, the head of the Homeownership Preservation Office within the Treasury. By contrast, there were 2.8 million foreclosures in 2009, and some three million more are projected this year.

Last month, the Treasury rolled out its most comprehensive changes to HAMP yet. The new rules, the Treasury said, could pave the way toward fewer foreclosures by urging more principal reductions, providing relief to unemployed homeowners, and letting homeowners convert their mortgage to a federally-backed, more secure loan. But will these changes really do much good, salvaging what some say has become a $75 billion boondoggle? That's the question the House financial services committee took up on Wednesday, bringing together top administration and industry officials, academics, and other experts to weigh in on HAMP's new look. Unfortunately, what the majority of those experts had to say didn't bode well for Obama's flagship program.

A common refrain among those who testified yesterday was that HAMP remains a mostly voluntary program; that Treasury has yet to force mortgage servicers, who are the boots-on-the-ground connection to homeowners, and investors to make tough but necessary changes. Take principal writedowns, the reduction of how much someone owes on their mortgage. While HAMP's new changes encourage principal writedowns, they still don't make them mandatory, but rather dangle yet more incentives over servicers to get them to write down principal. "The new principal reduction approach (which will not even be implemented until close to the end of this calendar year) is unlikely to coax many servicers into reducing principal," said Alys Cohen, an attorney with the National Consumer Law Center.

Moreover, coaxing servicers to decrease principal and offering more money to do so reflects the Treasury's insistence on incentives over requirements. "Unfortunately, as HAMP has been implemented, Treasury has largely relied on large carrots to get servicer participation and has generally, if not entirely, eschewed sticks," said Andrew Jakabovics, of the Center for American Progress. "Borrowers and their advocates frequently find servicers are making mistakes on a range of program elements but there is no consistent, independent mechanism for redress, despite calls for developing a robust appeal process since the program’s beginning." Treasury's avoidance of mandatory principal requirements—or what's called "cramdown," in which bankruptcy courts are allowed to rewrite the terms of a mortgage—aligns with the position of the mortgage industry, as evidenced by the testimony yesterday of Robert Story, the chairman of the Mortgage Bankers Association, which opposes these tougher provisions.

Several experts yesterday also doubted the administration's plan to help unemployed homeowners by reducing their mortgage payments for a period of up to six months while they try to find work. The NCLC's Cohen, for instance, doubted whether six months was a sufficient period of time to find a new job; indeed, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported earlier this month that 6.55 million workers had been out of work for more than 26 weeks, a national record. If so many workers are jobless for more than six months, will this addition to HAMP do that much good?

Big question marks remain in the structure of HAMP, Wednesday's hearing showed. The net present value test—used by mortgage servicers to determine whether someone gets a modification or not—has yet to be made public, which means there's no transparency or accountability for a core element of HAMP. Moreover, Treasury has yet to announce any kind of penalties or corrective actions for servicers who don't comply with HAMP's guidelines, said Cohen.

And as Valparaiso law professor Alan White described, HAMP's overall impact has actually been to decrease the total number of modifications, both public and private. Before March 2009, when HAMP came out, permanent modifications numbered around 120,000 a month; soon after, that figure dropped to 80,000 or so a month. Now, a year after HAMP's release, White said, those modification numbers were returning to pre-HAMP levels. "There is still no overall increase in modifications, or reduction in foreclosures, resulting from HAMP," White said. What's more, data released by the Treasury this week showed that the number of homeowner defaults by those who'd received a permanent modification nearly doubled in March. And in a report released Wednesday, the Congressional Oversight Panel stated that 75 percent of homeowners in HAMP remained underwater, meaning they owe more than their house is worth.

In his testimony, White questioned the entire premise of HAMP. He dubbed the program's philosophy "extend and pretend," suggesting that the program merely moves homeowners' debt a bit further into the future, kicking the can down the road, rather than addressing the issue of negative equity and out of whack mortgage payments right now. The only way to truly address the foreclosure crisis, he said, was to mandate principal reductions for homeowners—not use small incentive payments and other carrots to lure servicers into helping people.

In all, most of the testimonies reflected a widely held skepticism about HAMP, new provisions or not. Those experts essentially suggested that, unless the program is largely reimagined, it won't do much at all to help the millions of homeowners still clinging to their houses.

Tue Nov. 18, 2014 6:00 AM EST
Wed Oct. 15, 2014 2:01 PM EDT
Tue Jun. 24, 2014 2:22 PM EDT
Thu Apr. 24, 2014 5:06 AM EDT
Mon Jan. 13, 2014 12:19 PM EST